Tag: investors
Former President Donald Trump

How Trump Scammed Investors In His Last Public Stock Offering

Former President Donald Trump's Truth Social platform is set for its initial public offering (IPO) as soon as next week after its merger was approved by a special purpose acquisition company. But while Trump himself stands to reap a multibillion-dollar windfall, investors may not be as lucky given Trump's past IPO record.

According to NBC News, Trump's last attempt to go public crashed and burned relatively quickly, with investors getting soaked even as Trump reaped significant benefits. A few months before the 2016 presidential election, the Washington Post reported that when the business mogul took Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts public, it plummeted from a $14 per share IPO to a penny stock in less than a decade.

"In its short life, Trump the company greatly enriched Trump the businessman, paying to have his personal jet piloted and buying heaps of Trump-brand merchandise," the Post's Drew Harwell wrote at the time. "Despite losing money every year under Trump’s leadership, the company paid Trump handsomely, including a $5 million bonus in the year the company’s stock plummeted 70 percent."

NBC reported that Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts performed relatively well for a time, hitting a peak of $35 per share in 1996. However, once it purchased a casino for $100 million more than it was worth, the value of the company's shares started to slide precipitously.

"The year the stock peaked, it lost $66 million. In 1999, it lost $134 million," NBC reporter Dareh Gregorian wrote. "And in 2004 — when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange — it lost $191 million, according to a CNBC review."

Truth Social may end up suffering a similar fate after its parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group, debuts its IPO on the Nasdaq exchange. Even though Trump himself is expected to net roughly $3.5 billion from the deal, it may be a considerably more risky bet for mom-and-pop investors.

CNN reported that Truth Social is "hemorrhaging users" and has just roughly 860,000 active accounts. That's far less than other far more popular social media networks like Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, X/Twitter and TikTok. Truth Social is reportedly not even among the top 100 apps downloaded on Apple's App Store, and the company's own management worried it could go belly-up if its merger wasn't approved.

"It's grossly overvalued,” University of Florida finance professor Jay Ritter told CNN. "It qualifies as a meme stock for which the price is divorced from fundamental value."

All eyes are on Trump's finances as he struggles under the weight of multiple civil judgments nearing $600 million in total. The former president owes roughly $464 million in penalties and interest to the State of New York after Judge Arthur Engoron found him guilty of artificially inflating the value of his real estate portfolio. He also recently posted a $91 million bond in his appeal of writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation verdict against him. That judgment came down after a 2023 judgment in which Trump was found guilty in a separate civil case of sexual abuse.

Despite his pending $3.5 billion payday, Trump is prohibited from selling any of his shares for six months, meaning he won't have any immediate help from the IPO in paying his legal costs.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

A Trump Presidency Would Sink All Boats

A Trump Presidency Would Sink All Boats

Hello, investors. Come join the foreign policy experts in daily panic attacks over what a President Donald Trump would mean for your world. What does one do about a candidate whose tax plan would send America into the fiscal abyss — who flaps lips about not making good on the national debt?

Should we be investing in the makers of Xanax and Klonopin? And on the personal side, are there enough benzodiazepines to go around?

We’re not talking just about the very rich. Anyone with a retirement account or a small portfolio has something to lose. The economic consensus is that a Trump presidency would sink all boats. And that certainly applies to Trump’s own economically struggling followers in the least seaworthy craft.

“Most Rust Belt working-class Americans don’t get it,” Bob Deitrick, CEO of Polaris Financial Partners in Westerville, Ohio, told me. “The working class thinks he’s going to stick it to the elites.”

The facts: The Trump tax plan would deliver an average tax cut of $1.3 million to those with annual incomes exceeding $3.7 million. The lowest-income households would get $128. (No missing zeros here.)

Folks in the middle would see federal taxes reduced by about $2,700, which sounds nice but would come out of their own hide. Medicare and other programs that benefit the middle class would have to be slashed. So would spending on science research, infrastructure and services essential to the U.S. economy.

Or we could skip the very deep spending cuts and see the national debt balloon by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product, calculation courtesy of the Tax Policy Center.

Some might think that Trump’s tax plan — including the repeal of the federal tax on estates bigger than $5.43 million — would impress the income elite, but they would be wrong. In a recent poll of Fortune 500 executives, 58 percent of the respondents said they would support Hillary Clinton over Trump.

Most in this Republican-leaning group are undoubtedly asking themselves: What good is a fur-lined deck chair if the ship’s going down?

Then there are the others.

“Do middle-class Americans have any idea what could happen to the economy or the stock market if our president ever vaguely suggested defaulting on the national debt?” Deitrick asked. (His clients tend to be upper-middle-class investors.)

He recalls the summer of 2011, when a congressional game of chicken over raising the federal debt ceiling led to the possibility of a default. The Dow lost 2,400 points in a single week. And taxpayers were hit with $1.3 billion in higher borrowing costs that year alone.

Trump said on CNN that he is the “king of debt,” which in practice means he frequently doesn’t honor it. That’s why many major lenders shun him, talking of “Donald risk.”

Speaking of, Trump famously said in a Trump University interview, “I sort of hope (the real estate market crashes), because then people like me would go in and buy.”

But he also predicted that the real estate market would not tank — shortly before it did. Perhaps he never figured out there was a housing bubble. Or it was part of a clever scheme to peddle real estate courses with brochures asking, “How would you like to market-proof your financial future?”

Imagine a whole country taking on “Donald risk.”

The business community runs on stability. It can’t prosper under a showman who says crazy things and denies having said them moments later. A Trump presidency promises more chaos than a Marx Brothers movie — and you can believe it would be a lot less fun.

 

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hands a five-dollar bill back to a supporter after signing it for her following a rally with sportsmen in Walterboro, South Carolina February 17, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

The Economy Looks Strong. Why Aren’t Investors Happy?

The Economy Looks Strong. Why Aren’t Investors Happy?

By Gail MarksJarvis, Chicago Tribune (TNS)

Just as analysts were beginning to fixate on risks to the U.S. from a fragile global economy, a new report Wednesday melted away the gloom.

At the moment, the U.S. appears to be in surprisingly good shape. In fact, the service economy — or the great majority of the U.S. economy — surged to the highest level in a decade in July, according to the Institute for Supply Management non-manufacturing report.

The ISM report, closely watched by economists and investors, shocked analysts because it indicated surprising strength across a wide range of industries — from education services, entertainment and health care, to the wholesale trade, retail, and transportation. In addition, hiring continued its 17-month climb, reaching the highest level since 2005.

The report “was good news all-around,” said Ksenia Bushmeneva, economist for TD Economics. “There is definitely no summer lull in the U.S. services sector.”

Economist Jim O’Sullivan of High Frequency Economics said: “The data show good momentum.”

In contrast, the nation’s manufacturing economy has not been strong. Economies in Asia, Europe, and Latin America have been reluctant to make purchases; a strong U.S. dollar has made American products expensive to foreign customers.

The service economy is “less exposed to weakening in foreign demand,” said O’Sullivan.

While the Dow Jones industrial average first surged 100 points upon the release of the service sector data, the gains gave way to concerns from investors who fear the data will provide a green light for the Federal Reserve to start raising interest rates.

The Dow closed down 10 points to 17,540.

Interest rates have been near zero since the Fed started using stimulus to bring life to the recessionary economy. As low rates have persisted, they’ve been a knee-jerk signal to investors to buy stocks even when the economy has been troubled. With bonds paying little interest due to the Fed’s low-rate policy, stocks were perceived as the only game for investors who wanted to earn some income.

Now, if the Fed takes the pacifier away by raising interest rates in September, there is a concern that investors’ knee-jerk reaction will be to sell stocks. Presumably the stock market would dip from recent lofty levels. Yet just how far or how sustained that decline might be has been hotly debated. Some analysts point to history showing that the stock market typically rises, rather than falls, when the Fed starts raising rates, because the Fed action means the economy is strong. Other analysts say history is worthless because of unprecedented action by the Fed during the last few years to manipulate the economy and the stock market after the recession.

With investors anticipating a rate increase soon, the stock market has stalled this year. But the Standard & Poor’s 500 has climbed about 90 percent during the last five years.

Friday’s unemployment rate will be watched closely for another signal about the Fed’s next step. Until recently, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen has said there were too many people without well-paying jobs, so the Fed had to continue to keep interest rates low. Her tone seemed to change after the Fed’s July meeting. On Tuesday, Dennis Lockhart, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, said it’s time for the Fed to start raising rates.

Economists increasingly are expecting the Fed to begin raising interest rates in September. They think concerns will persist about the potential drag on the U.S. from weakness in the global economy but assume that modest strength in the U.S. will last.

In particular, despite an ADP jobs report Tuesday that came in below expectations, analysts are assuming Friday’s unemployment report will be strong.

“We do not believe this Friday’s jobs report will be weak,” Deutsche Bank economist Joseph LaVorgna said in a note to clients Wednesday.

He noted that very few people have lost their jobs recently. “Initial jobless claims remain near a 42-year low,” and the taxes people are paying to the IRS from their paychecks have “been growing at a healthy 5 percent annual rate.”

Further, he added, “July motor vehicle sales were a robust 17.5 million units, which bodes well for hiring because households typically do not purchase big-ticket consumer goods if job and income prospects are not improving.”

Photo: Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen (AFP Photo/Saul Loeb)

Social Impact Bonds Tap Private Money For Public Health

Social Impact Bonds Tap Private Money For Public Health

By Michael Ollove, Stateline.org (MCT)

South Carolina is turning to an unusual source to finance a new program intended to reduce the state’s high rate of premature births: private investors.

If the program succeeds in reducing that rate among Medicaid beneficiaries, and reduces state spending as a result, the state will repay the principal plus a yet-to-be determined rate of return. If the program doesn’t meet expectations, the state will owe the investors less or even nothing at all.

The state sees the plan as a way to launch a promising health program without having to bear the costs for years to come, if ever.

“If we achieve the results we hope for, the state wins by getting an innovative program that works and the investors get a payback,” said John Supra, a deputy director of the state Department of Health and Human Services.

The financial instrument powering the project is called a social impact bond (SIB), also referred to as a pay-for-success contract. In the past several years, a number of states and municipalities have used SIBs for multiyear projects pertaining to education, homelessness and prisoner recidivism. In most cases, the money goes to a nonprofit that provides the services.

Lately, as in South Carolina, projects related to health care have begun to turn to the same mechanism. In Fresno, Calif., for example, where more than 20 percent of children have been diagnosed with asthma (compared with 8 percent nationally), the city is expected to use an SIB in a project to reduce the number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations resulting from childhood asthma.

Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah and Oregon also have or are considering using SIBs to fund a variety of health-related programs for such things as substance abuse treatment and early childhood health interventions. The District of Columbia is turning to an SIB for a teenage pregnancy prevention program.

Many of these health projects are geared toward prevention and save money if they help states avoid paying for expensive services, such as hospitalizations and surgeries. Because SIBs extend for many years, there is time for those savings to emerge and be measured.

Enthusiasm among some of those involved in SIBs is high. “When I first heard about this concept, I was not sold, but over time, I have become a believer,” said Kevin Hamilton, chief program officer at Clinica Sierra Vista, a health-care organization providing services to the poor in central California that is a partner in the Fresno asthma project.

Hamilton says he now believes that SIBs could be used to create prevention programs for all types of chronic diseases, including diabetes and heart failure.

Others are skeptical. SIBs relieve governments of having to pay money upfront for these projects. But if the projects succeed, they have to repay the money along with what might be a sizeable return on investment, not to mention additional administrative expenses.

Critics are also quick to point out that SIBs have been around only since 2010 — not long enough to have had to pay out on their investments. So while more jurisdictions are pursuing SIBs, they are unproven.

In 2013, the Maryland legislature was considering an SIB for a prisoner reentry program until an analyst in the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Kyle McKay, showed that the cost of the SIB would be far greater than previously believed and that the probable state savings from a successful program were greatly overstated.

McKay, who now works for the Texas Legislative Budget Board, a permanent joint committee of the legislature that develops budget and policy recommendations, has become a prominent critic of SIBs. “It is my personal opinion that social impact bonds are expensive and risky,” he testified at a U.S. Senate hearing in May. “They may also distract governments from a more comprehensive, sustainable approach to improving public policy.”

The United Kingdom is usually credited with launching the first SIB, a six-year project started in 2010 to prevent recidivism among prisoners released after serving short sentences. Although the project showed some success in the early stages (though below its goals), it was aborted earlier this year in favor of another approach. So far, it has not paid out to investors, but still could if the first-phase goals are reached.

In 2012, New York City became the first American jurisdiction to use an SIB, for a prisoner rehabilitation program that received $9.6 million in private investment money.

With funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harvard Kennedy School created the Social Impact Bond Technical Assistance Lab, which is helping some states and municipalities. Applicants identify a social service project they would like to launch, often one that has shown success in a pilot program, and the lab helps them put financing together and establish measurable benchmarks.

The California Endowment, a private health foundation, has contributed $1.1 million to fund a two-year project in the Fresno area in which trained health-care workers will visit the homes of 200 children with asthma who have had previous emergency room visits or hospitalizations as a result of the condition.

The workers will educate families on asthma and also rid the homes of environmental triggers that lead to the ailment, such as cigarette smoke, dust mites and other contaminants. If the program proves successful by reducing the medical costs associated with asthma, the plan is to attract private money to extend the program to an additional 3,500 children.

Recently, South Carolina health officials began to think that an SIB might be the best way to attack the state’s high rate of premature births. The state ranked fourth highest in those births in 2013 and more than 11 percent of Medicaid births in the state were premature.

The state had been involved in a small but effective program that sent visiting nurses or other trained health-care workers into the homes of poor, pregnant women before births and for 18 to 40 months afterward to provide support and education. The result was healthier births and healthier children in the first three years of life. With SIB funding (the amount has yet to be determined), the state plans to increase the number of beneficiaries from a few hundred to 4,000.

John Supra, deputy director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, said the hope is that the seven-year program will lead to reduced state costs in several areas, from less use of neonatal intensive care, to less spending on child abuse and special education services — all of which are linked to premature births. Supra expects the full program to be up and running in April.

Narev Shah, a director at Social Finance, which has helped a number of jurisdictions put together SIB contracts, said SIBs are in line with the Affordable Care Act, which encourages better health outcomes while reducing health care costs. “The ACA aligns nicely with social impact bonds with its focus on preventive measures that will alleviate longer term expensive utilizations,” he said.

As with all SIBs, in order for investors to recoup their money and turn a profit, the projects must achieve measurable success in improving health outcomes and saving money. Goldman Sachs and Bank of America are among the commercial institutional investors that have invested in SIBs.

The reason, says David Juppe, an analyst with the Maryland General Assembly who worked with McKay on his report, is that the SIBs promise high rates of return. “I haven’t seen anything less than double-digit returns,” Juppe said. Often, though, McKay has testified, the SIB deals are so complicated and involve so many entities, that determining exactly what results deliver what rates of return is almost impossible.

For many commercial investors, the financial risk isn’t as great as it first appears to be. Many of the SIBs are designed with the involvement of foundations, which often guarantee at least some payout to investors if the program doesn’t achieve the established goals. In the New York City prison project, for example, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, has guaranteed to pay back investors up to $7.2 million from their $9.6 million investment if the program falls short.

Cohen also questions whether SIBs actually fulfill the goal of spawning innovations. Because of the investment risk, he says the projects that are backed by SIBs tend to be models that have already proven that they do work.

“If you’re investing the SIBs in things with a high probability of success,” he said, “why doesn’t government just do it themselves in the first place?”

Photo: Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr